On Mon, 2018-04-09 at 15:50 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Sat 2018-04-07 17:26:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:

> > This change collides with my patch series. Can you elaborate what
> > your
> > thoughts are about my patches? Are you going incorporate them to
> > your
> > series? Should I send them independently?
> 
> Good question. I think that the best solution will be that I go
> over your patchset and just add all valid ones into printk.git
> for-4.18.

I think about 1-7 and 9 that can go as is before your changes.
And patch 8 postpone

>  Then I will base v5 of this patchset on top of it.

I'm going for vacation tomorrow. Can you just take them into your series
or apply to your tree?

> I should have done this earlier. But I did not expect that long
> way for the access-check stuff. We originally planned to
> do the access check first, see
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1520000254.10722.389.ca...@linux.intel.com

Yeah, I didn't consider that your one patch became a series...

> But the access check patchset still need some love, so it makes
> sense to switch the order.

I agree.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy

Reply via email to